The Archaeology of Science: Studying the Creation of Useful Knowledge

212 Pages·2013·3.63 MB·English

by  Michael Brian Schiffer (auth.)

Manuals in Archaeological Method, Theory and Technique
Michael Brian Schiff er
The
Archaeology
of Science
Studying the Creation of Useful
Knowledge
MANUALS IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD,
THEORY AND TECHNIQUE
Series Editors:
Charles E. Orser, Jr., Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois
Michael Brian Schiffer, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
For further volumes:
http://www.springer.com/series/6256
Author’s Sculpture, Time Dilation, Inspired by Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity
(author photograph)
Michael Brian Schiffer
The Archaeology of Science
Studying the Creation of Useful Knowledge
Michael Brian Schiffer
School of Anthropology
University of Arizona
Tucson , AZ , USA
ISSN 1571-5752
ISBN 978-3-319-00076-3 ISBN 978-3-319-00077-0 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-00077-0
Springer Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2013933449
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection
with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifi cally for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this
publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher's
location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer.
Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations
are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
Preface
For many years I had contemplated writing a book about science, having spent
much time immersed in the science and technologies of early electricity. I had also
done desultory reading in the history and philosophy of science and even wrote dur-
ing the summer of 2002 a manuscript of poor quality. But not until October of 2011
did inspiration strike, allowing me to revisit and reconceive the book project. To
pass the time during an all-day train trip from northern Virginia to Boston, I read
Harrison and Schofi eld’s (2010) After Modernity: Archaeological Approaches to
the Contemporary Past . From this engrossing work I learned that a few archaeolo-
gists had been documenting the remains of twentieth-century scientifi c activities,
including the testing of nuclear weapons in the Nevada desert.
Discovering that other archaeologists had already begun the study of modern
science was the impetus I needed to envision T he Archaeology of Science , which
would showcase traditional strategies as well as new case studies. By the time the
train reached Boston, I had written on a yellow pad many pages of notes and a pro-
visional outline. This book would explore the diverse research activities that archae-
ologists use to study science—ancient and modern. Upon returning to Tucson in
January, I began work on this project in earnest; the research was exciting and the
writing most pleasurable.
Behavioralists have long maintained that archaeologists investigate the science
embodied in traditional technologies (e.g., McGuire and Schiffer 1983; Schiffer and
Skibo 1987, 1997). Toward this end we employ—singly and in combination—
experiments, ethnoarchaeology, and archaeometry to tease out the generalizations
that people had discovered about, for example, the properties of materials and pro-
cesses of artifact manufacture and use. However, as Harrison and Schofi eld show,
our efforts need not be confi ned to studying the science of ancient technologies and
of traditional peoples. Indeed, my earlier forays into electrical science and technol-
ogy demonstrated that the science of early modern and modern technologies impli-
cates a host of new research questions whose answers may be sought in diverse lines
of historical and archaeological evidence. The archaeology of science, then,
v
vi Preface
embraces the old and new, the exotic and familiar—in short, scientifi c activities of
all times and all places.
To give some coherence to this expansive vision, I have rethought from a behav-
ioral perspective the general concepts of scientifi c knowledge and reconsidered the
relationships between science and technology. My notions on these topics, pre-
sented in chapters “Science: A Behavioral Perspective” and “Varieties of Scientifi c
Knowledge,” promote a holistic view of science and of the archaeology of science.
The remaining chapters explore what the archaeology of science has been (Part II)
and what it is becoming (Part III).
Instead of trying to survey all previous work, a patent impossibility that would
result only in strings of “drive-by” citations, I present extended examples and
lengthy case studies that, in light of the discussions in chapters “Science: A
Behavioral Perspective” and “Varieties of Scientifi c Knowledge,” illustrate archaeo-
logical strategies for researching science. I hope that the case studies will interest
the reader as much as they have the writer, for they handle intriguing subjects such
as the fi rst machine that generated electricity, the Polynesian colonization of New
Zealand, and a nuclear-thermal engine for rockets.
Throughout the chapters, especially in Part III, I offer suggestions about research
potential, often in the form of substantive questions, which perhaps the next genera-
tion of archaeologists will design projects to answer.
This book’s main target audience is advanced undergraduates and graduate stu-
dents. Indeed, T he Archaeology of Science could serve well as a text in a seminar-
style course whose discussions focus on the several stages of student-initiated
projects undertaken in the spirit of this book.
Although this book is aimed at other archaeologists and their students, I believe
that the provocative arguments in Part I, especially, could potentially interest schol-
ars in every discipline that studies science: history, philosophy, sociology, and cul-
tural anthropology. Among the many features that may give the work some traction
in other disciplines are the following.
1. A fully general defi nition of science is provided that applies to all human societ-
ies (see chapter “Science: A Behavioral Perspective”).
2. I bring into the scope of science studies the activities of ordinary people, appara-
tus consisting of mundane objects, and the kinds of scientifi c knowledge that
render predictable people’s interactions with the material world (see chapter
“Science: A Behavioral Perspective”).
3. New insights are offered into the relationship of science and technology by
focusing on projects (see chapter “Science: A Behavioral Perspective”).
4. I treat at length the several kinds of scientifi c knowledge that enable predictions,
including recipes (see chapter “Varieties of Scientifi c Knowledge”).
5. A bridge is built between the “unobservables” invoked by traditional (folk) theo-
ries and the theories of modern science by means of the concept of “quasi- natural
entity” (see chapter “Varieties of Scientifi c Knowledge”).
Preface vii
Finally, in explaining this project to friends and family, I realized that this book
may have an audience beyond the academy because the case studies in Parts II and
III are so fascinating and eminently accessible to the general reader.
Alexandria, VA, USA Michael Brian Schiffer
References
Harrison, Rodney, and John Schofi eld. 2010. After modernity: Archaeological approaches to the
contemporary past . Oxford: University of Oxford Press.
McGuire, Randall H., and Michael B. Schiffer. 1983. A theory of architectural design. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 2:277–303.
Schiffer, Michael B., and James M. Skibo. 1987. Theory and experiment in the study of techno-
logical change. C urrent Anthropology 28:595–622.
———. 1997. The explanation of artifact variability. A merican Antiquity 62:27–50.

Acknowledgments
During the fall of 2001, I was a Senior Fellow in the Dibner Institute at MIT where
I was able to interact with more than two dozen junior and senior fellows who rep-
resented a variety of disciplines studying science and technology. On the basis of
lunchtime presentations and discussions it became clear to me that an archaeologi-
cal perspective might make useful contributions. However, the draft I wrote during
the following summer was, as Jennifer L. Croissant kindly pointed out, a polemic
that would infl ame rather than inform. She also supplied constructive suggestions
that have helped me in crafting the present work. I am greatly indebted to Jen for
sparing me the embarrassment of trying to get that horrid manuscript published.
In January of 2012, I put out a call to historical archaeologists, asking for infor-
mation about projects that had studied scientifi c activities. I received dozens of
replies containing many citations, pfds, and other information. From these I selected
some examples and case studies that appear in Parts II and III. A mere thank you
cannot express my delight in the collegiality of historical archaeologists, including
Lyle Browning, Henry Cary, Craig Cessford, Sarah E. Cowie, Melissa Diamanti, C.
J. Evans, Denis Gojak, Christina J. Hodge, Silas Hurry, Nicholas M. Lucchetti,
Natascha Mehler, Robin O. Mills, Michael R. Polk, James Symonds, and Steven
Walton.
In writing The Archaeology of Science I have been fortunate to obtain from vari-
ous colleagues insightful critiques of several chapters. I thank them one and all for
giving generously of their time and expertise in support of this project (see indi-
vidual chapters for specifi c acknowledgments). I single out for special thanks
Deborah J. Warner who provided instructive comments on the entire manuscript,
helping me to express ideas with greater clarity and brevity.
I thank Arthur P. Molella, director of the Lemelson Center, National Museum of
American History, Smithsonian Institution, for giving me a home away from home
as a Research Associate. During our Tuesday lunches at the Smithsonian, Deborah
J. Warner and Peggy Kidwell supplied very helpful feedback on ideas I was devel-
oping for this book. Discussions with Lars Fogelin helped me to refi ne my defi ni-
tion of science.
ix